Arora v. Edwards, No. 06-6305 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6305 VASU D. ARORA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN EDWARDS; MICHELLE DERRIKO; MICHAEL J. BARBOUR; TERRY G. KILGORE; JOHN R. FLEDER; DOES 1 THROUGH 25, inclusive, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge. (1:98-cr-00072-GMW; 7:05-cv-00188-JCT) Submitted: June 22, 2006 Decided: June 30, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Vasu D. Arora, Appellant Pro Se. Kevin Osborne Barnard, FRITH, ANDERSON & PEAKE, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Vasu D. Arora seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion for production of documents following the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.* The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). not issue absent a constitutional right. A certificate of appealability will substantial showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). of a A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 68384 (4th Cir. 2001). conclude that We have independently reviewed the record and Arora has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Finding the appeal timely filed, we deny Appellees motion to dismiss on that basis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the * Arora filed the underlying action as a civil complaint against the Defendants. The district court determined that his action was, in effect, a § 2255 motion because Arora sought to challenge the validity of his convictions and his sentence based on his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. - 2 - materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 3 -
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
